US public’s acceptance of scientific knowledge erratic

We're good with the risks of smoking; can't deal with the age of the Earth.

The Associated Press has commissioned a poll that delves into the US public's acceptance of some extremely well-established scientific findings—so established that most scientists would consider them facts. Although some of these facts have clearly entered the public's consciousness, there are a number of issues where US citizens haven't accepted reality.

The survey, which had a sample of over 1,000 people (for a margin of error of about three percent), simply stated the facts and then asked people to express how confident they were in the accuracy of the statement. The pollsters broke it down into three general categories: extremely or very confident, somewhat confident, and what you'd call the doubters: those who were not confident and not confident at all.

The good news is that more than 80 percent of those surveyed are strongly confident that smoking causes cancer; only four percent doubt it. Roughly 70 percent accepted that we have a genome and that mental illness is seated in the brain; about 20 percent were uncertain on these subjects, and the doubters were few. But things go downhill from there. Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting.

And that's one of the controversial topics where the public did well. As for humanity's role in climate change, 33 percent accepted, 28 percent were unsure, and 37 percent fell in the doubter category. For a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth and a 13.8-billion-year-old Big Bang, acceptance was below 30 percent. Fully half of the public doubted the Big Bang.

As usual, there were problems with evolution. Thirty-one percent accepted that life on Earth (including humans) evolved, while 43 percent doubted it. But there was what you might call micro-acceptance of some aspects of evolution: 65 percent of those polled accepted the idea that antibiotic overuse led to drug-resistant bacteria.

The accompanying evaluation suggests that part of the problem is simply that the age of the Earth and Universe seems very remote to people, who question whether we can say anything about them with confidence. In contrast, many people have personal experience with the harms of smoking, leading to widespread acceptance.

An analysis of the correlations within the data indicates that "confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises." The pollsters themselves, though, are part of the problem in this case. In the midst of a series of scientific statements, they inserted the following: "The Universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation." (Just over half agreed.) This would be enough to evoke many people's cultural affinities for religious beliefs and is likely to influence the answers to the remaining questions. Questions were randomized, so this won't be a problem for every participant, but it's still likely to have skewed the results.

(Refusal to accept climate change isn't an obviously religious issue, but it tends to be part of a package of conservative political and religious beliefs.)

The results provide some cause for optimism. At one point in time, there was an aggressive and well-funded campaign designed to raise doubt about the hazards of smoking. A concerted and ongoing counter-campaign helped turn the tide. Of course, that latter effort was aided by a bit of personal experience and self-interest; everybody cares about their health, as the wide acceptance of the evolution of antibiotic resistance shows.

It will remain difficult for anyone to have either personal experience or interest in the age of the Earth or Universe, so bringing the public around to reality on those issues may remain a difficult battle. But the same isn't true of climate change, which could provide an opening for shifting public opinion.

Okay no problem. We find these ignorant simpletons and seize any and all technology benefiting their everyday life which has roots in the scientific breakthroughs of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not just computers but cars, kitchen appliances, everything. You don't believe (HAHA WTF?) in science? You don't get to use its fruits of labor. Go away and live in a cave. Let's see how they like that, eh?

The numbers are definitely depressing but I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on or the people answering are intentionally messing with the poll.

Challenging someones religiously based belief is widely regarded as somewhat offensive, especially if that person is well meaning, but perhaps misguided about say the ages of the earth, or why monkeys don't give birth to humans. I feel like this is starting to change, but really it just requires more people to turn to their religious peers and say 'hey, you are wrong and setting us all back' .

As usual, there were problems with evolution. Thirty-one percent accepted that life on Earth (including humans) evolved, while 43 percent doubted it. But there was what you might call micro-acceptance of some aspects of evolution: 65 percent of those polled accepted the idea that antibiotic overuse led to drug-resistant bacteria.

Translation: People will fully embrace aspects of biology which, having built their foundations on our understanding of natural selection, adaptation and evolution, have rendered knowledge that is of tangible benefit to the layperson. Knowledge that is of (mostly) academic benefit can be dismissed because their preacher simply tells them that it's incorrect.

That's the cognitive dissonance that you often encounter with people who reject scientifically-established concepts like our 4+ billion-year-old planet, the evolution of all of the species upon it or the climate change that it's undergoing (at least partially) by our doing.

Where the scientific method yields medical technologies that can save their lives or communications technologies that make their work more efficient or their recreation more enjoyable? People have no problem accepting the underlying scientific theories.

Does any religious person who flies think that their chosen deities or principalities pick up the airplane at the point of origin and place it down gently at the destination? There may be some real crackpots that do, but I've never met them. No, the vast majority of religious people who fly on airplanes accept the theories of gravitation and motion, the concepts behind modern aeronautics, etc.--all things arrived at using the scientific method, and theories developed (often) in the teeth of religious opposition.

But there's a disconnect when they can't directly benefit from a theory (or perceive that they can't directly benefit from a theory).

Cartman: "Are you are saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?"Kyle: "Yes, I'm saying 1/4th of Americans are retards."Stan: "At least 1/4th"Kyle: "Lets take a sample. There's four of us. You're a retard. That's 1/4th"

The "trouble" with vaccines is that they have been too successful. People don't remember a time when now preventable diseases caused serious illness, disability or even death.

One of my moron co-workers told me that "she'd never heard of anyone dying of measles".

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is the crux of the issue. The general public is not scientifically aware but considers themselves pretty astute. We as humans find it easier to wrap our minds around the tangible, experienced reality around us. But when it comes to extrapolating that to a more abstract and less tangible 4.5bn yr old Earth, or evolution for example, doubts creep in.

I think it's because average Joe (or Jane) feels they can't verify the information for themselves. This might explain the people who think the Sun goes round the Earth, they think they're seeing this happen every day and may perceive this as an equally valid perspective as the Earth going round the Sun?

Bottom line, more investment in education (unadulterated by religion) is required. I think this applies globally BTW, not just in the US.

Question: Leepers have been legally separated as plague bearers from the general population in the past, now chances are that people who refuse vaccination are an even greater public health risks, can we force them to wear signs or something?

The numbers are definitely depressing but I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on or the people answering are intentionally messing with the poll.

One of the biggest misconceptions by people with little statistical background.

I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on

As stated in the article, this sample size is sufficient for a 3% margin of error. There is a great deal of irony, in that you are questioning the validity of the science behind a poll on questioning the validity of science.

Not saying she's right to advise or prevent anyone from getting a measles vaccine, but her vaccines and her family are her choice.

Saying her family is her choice... Children aren't the property of their parents, and refusing vaccination really does come close to being child abuse, IMO. Bringing back diseases that should by all rights be extinct shouldn't be a parental right.

I took a look at the linked PDF and I think the author is misinterpreting the survey. Specifically, I think it's misleading to call some of those surveyed "doubters". There was no answer choice on the survey that indicated "doubt". Rather, the following choices were provided:

* Extremely/very confident* Extremely confident* Very confident* Somewhat confident* Not too/not at all confident* Not too confident* Not at all confident

While it is true 30% of those surveyed were "Not at all confident" that the "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang", that could simply because those surveyed did not know exactly when the big bang happened.

If you told me that your dog's name is Peaches, and then asked me to pick one of the choices on the survey, I would pick "Not at all confident". It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I'm not confident. That's an important distinction, and I think it's one that gets missed in this article. Sure, it may be more attention-grabbing to say that 30% of Americans doubt the big bang, but if anything they just don't know.

Not saying she's right to advise or prevent anyone from getting a measles vaccine, but her vaccines and her family are her choice.

Saying her family is her choice... Children aren't the property of their parents, and refusing vaccination really does come close to being child abuse, IMO. Bringing back diseases that should by all rights be extinct shouldn't be a parental right.

[In many of the major outbreaks of whooping cough and measles in the past couple years, the many victims and carriers were vaccinated, many of the deaths occurred in those who couldn't be vaccinated. It can easily be observed why the lay person might be skeptical of the unbridled ubiquity of vaccines. http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/ ... first-time

Only if they, like you apparently, didn't bother to actually read the article that you linked to.

Nice job missing the point of that article (that unvaccinated people put even vaccinated people at risk by circulating the disease) and expanding an article about one case ("Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time") into "many major outbreaks".